This is not evidenceNeehau said:No evidence is enough evidence for the victims of propaganda on the political right.GeorgiAg said:
After he was told they had weapons, Trump told the crowd to march to the Capitol. Meadows aware people with weapons marching to the Capitol.
*****Official Jan 6th Committee Hearing Thread*****
152,813 Views |
2038 Replies |
Last: 8 mo ago by Funky Winkerbean
Who wasn't breathlessly waiting for THIS dumbsh*t to weigh in ....
(i think i did this correctly) pic.twitter.com/ZzTSlTNhMm
— Monica Lewinsky (she/her) (@MonicaLewinsky) June 28, 2022
Tramp96 said:
Look, I'm voting for DeSantis in 2024 and I don't worship Trump. I tire easily of his schtick, even though I love his policies.
But I can see this Jan. 6th "hearing" for what it is...a political hack show trial and nothing else. A 3rd bogus impeachment.
I'm ready for Trump to exit stage left, but this hearing is a ridiculous waste of time and resources.
This. If they wanted the general public to take this seriously, then both sides of the story should have been presented, akin to a trial structure (without the criminal nature obviously). No defense has been allowed. Nobody with an above-average IQ and a basic sense of intellectual honesty is going to take that very seriously or draw any definitive conclusions from it.
This is the one fact that the concerned moderates just don't want to confront. Let me hear the defense, then maybe we can have a conversation. But you don't want that.
1872walker said:
The smoking gunOmg pic.twitter.com/aPquTq9iYB
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 28, 2022
Haha that's great!
Zero irony in Monica Lewinsky saying "I think I did this correctly"
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022
LMAO🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022
aggie93 said:
Dem's star witness!
They impeached Trump the first time with the same kind of evidence. Truth just gets in the way of their corruption.
All the direct evidence of impeachable things the Biden admin has done and is doing, and all they can talk about is 3rd hand (or more distant) info on Jan 6th.
Uh, oh1872walker said:🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022
captkirk said:Uh, oh1872walker said:🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022
Surprisingly, NBC actually reported this.
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
On to the next lie libs!
But the chick gets away with lying because she will say "I was just repeating what I was told."
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Yup, and the nightly news will report her testimony and ignore the secret service. Clown world.Rapier108 said:
But the chick gets away with lying because she will say "I was just repeating what I was told."
Who says the committee will even call them? And the "actual testimony" is complete hearsay...larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
GCP12 said:Yup, and the nightly news will report her testimony and ignore the secret service. Clown world.Rapier108 said:
But the chick gets away with lying because she will say "I was just repeating what I was told."
While NBC did spend far more time on video of her testimony, Peter Alexander (the one who tweeted above) did actually report the same on air. It's definitely a step in the right direction.
I stand corrected. Good to hear1872walker said:GCP12 said:Yup, and the nightly news will report her testimony and ignore the secret service. Clown world.Rapier108 said:
But the chick gets away with lying because she will say "I was just repeating what I was told."
While NBC did spend far more time on video of her testimony, Peter Alexander (the one who tweeted above) did actually report the same on air. It's definitely a step in the right direction.
larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
No issues with unnamed sources as long as they support Dear Leader.
larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
I'm not placing weight period. I know how they play the game. They wanted a clown show instead of a real trial for a reason.
Right, it's not a criminal trial. It also is violating EVERY norm of Congressional procedure since the beginning of the Republic by not allowing the Minority to appoint their members, call witnesses, or cross examine.GeorgiAg said:
Due process is required if someone is going to be deprived of "life, liberty or property."
None of that is at stake here.
Your argument literally though is that this trial is meaningless as well since due process is not required. It's an MSNBC special.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
Do you honestly think a committee that would not allow representatives selected by the opposing party to take testimony that is contrary to their narrative?
larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
Her testimony under oath was that she heard this happened. Her testimony was not that she witnessed what happened. There's a huge difference.
What she said was heresay.
"I'm sure that won't make a bit of difference for those of you who enjoy a baseless rage over the decisions of a few teenagers."
GeorgiAg said:For some people, Trump can literally do NO wrong and you aren't even allowed to investigate him for it. I know I had TDS, but there are people here who have reverse TDS.CM Trump Voter said:
No! That's impossible. There's absolutely no way that you can be concerned about Trump's actions in 2021 AND be concerned about potential collusion by Hunter and Joe.
I wish we could investigate both of those but we know from other posters that these are mutually exclusive and one serves as an excuse for the other.
We live in a ****ing clown world and there are people on this board that have become so brainwashed in their first foray into big boy politics that they don't know what they are thinking.
I still wish he were prez and we had conservative policies on energy, immigration etc... But Jan 6 was not good and we need to get to the bottom of it and make sure it never happens again.
Dude, Trump is no angel and if the criticism of him over the years had been somewhat even handed and not constantly full of lies and hyperbole, we might be inclined to be a bit more critical of him; but the people with TDS like you and the media and Democrat leaders have done such a thorough job of crying wolf about the man and exaggerating to an insane level his foibles that this type of testimony today falls on deaf ears except to those sycophants who want their bias confirmed that Trump is the great Satan. For the sane and people concerned with more important things, its seen for the one sided kangaroo court that it is.
And when the media chooses to spend half of a thirty minute broadcast breathlessly reporting on a hamburger flung against a wall, while all but ignoring Biden's own dementia addled trip and requests by foreign leaders begging for the US to increase oil production, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why many people don't give a **** about what Trump does.
That is why hearsay is not evidence, no matter how bad Larry wants to claim it isRapier108 said:
But the chick gets away with lying because she will say "I was just repeating what I was told."
The sources were named. Can you read?J. Walter Weatherman said:larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
No issues with unnamed sources as long as they support Dear Leader.
aginlakeway said:larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
Her testimony under oath was that she heard this happened. Her testimony was not that she witnessed what happened. There's a huge difference.
What she said was heresay.
Yeah, not allowed in a court of law, but allowed for this Soviet style show trial.
First, they did allow members of the opposing party. the ones McCarthy picked just had a very obvious conflict of interest.1872walker said:larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
Do you honestly think a committee that would not allow representatives selected by the opposing party to take testimony that is contrary to their narrative?
Second, I dont think the J6 committee would call her to testify if they knew it would be easily refuted. I don't know if they have this agent's deposition testimony but if they do it would be unbelievably stupid to call the witness today.
But like I said, if people have different accounts they can come forward and make their voice heard
larry culpepper said:First, they did allow members of the opposing party. the ones McCarthy picked just had a very obvious conflict of interest.1872walker said:larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
Do you honestly think a committee that would not allow representatives selected by the opposing party to take testimony that is contrary to their narrative?
You're right. The ones Republicans assigned were interested in a fair and truthful hearing. Clearly at odds with the goals of this committee.
That's why they were rejected and replaced by Cheney and Kinsinger.
captkirk said:The sources were named. Can you read?J. Walter Weatherman said:larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
No issues with unnamed sources as long as they support Dear Leader.
"A source close to the secret service."
The dems and their minions have learned they can lie without worry of consequences. A sad state of affairs for our country.
Colombian hooker?J. Walter Weatherman said:captkirk said:The sources were named. Can you read?J. Walter Weatherman said:larry culpepper said:You're placing more weight on a tweet about an unnamed source than actual testimony under oath.Rockdoc said:
Awww……that's a shame.
On to the next lie libs!
I'm not even taking a position here. If they are ready to testify that, then they should. Until then, we have nothing.
No issues with unnamed sources as long as they support Dear Leader.
"A source close to the secret service."